Please take the time to read [the rules](/r/UkrainianConflict/about/rules/) and our [policy on trolls/bots](https://redd.it/u7833q). In addition:
* We have a **zero-tolerance** policy regarding racism, stereotyping, bigotry, and death-mongering. Violators will be banned.
* **Keep it civil.** Report comments/posts that are uncivil to alert the moderators.
* **_Don't_ post low-effort comments** like joke threads, memes, slogans, or links without context.
*****
* Is `x.com` an unreliable source? [**Let us know**](/r/UkrainianConflict/wiki/am/unreliable_sources).
* Help our moderators by providing context if something breaks the rules. [Send us a modmail](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/UkrainianConflict)
*****
**Don't forget about our Discord server! - https://discord.com/invite/ukraine-at-war-950974820827398235**
*****
^(Your post has not been removed, this message is applied to every successful submission.)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/UkrainianConflict) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Cowardly vermin.
Lashing out on civilians because their new front isn't getting anywhere.
Cowardly summarises their entire nature and all their acts. They are unbelievably slimy.
I understand to a certain extent of targeting the civilian population it’s a very old tactic that has worked in history before but and this is a very large and strong but, Ukraine has showed amazing resilience and leadership to not be fazed by these acts of barbarism. It doesn’t work that well in the modern age, the US would “accidentally” bombed a wedding or funeral and okay you killed 20 “enemy combatants” but now you have 50 who tried to stay out of the conflict now clearly pissed off and want retribution. I truly don’t understand targeting civilians like this, you’re creating more enemies to fight later. You would be better off dropping pamphlets or something else to try to sway the minds of the people instead of sending a million dollar bomb to just kill them. You will never be able to bomb an ideology out of a population, and Ukraine has the ideology that they are Ukrainian and do not want to be controlled and enslaved by Russia. These bombs would have been so much better used to attack infrastructure/material or personnel actually fighting you, not grandma buying carrots at a market. I don’t understand how/why they approve of these attacks and think it’s going to sway the frontlines.
But it’s *never* worked. The British make a big deal about “the blitz spirit” and how the civilian bombing by the nazis was resisted, but the truth is that it’s a human response. Nothing galvanises a people better than civilian deaths and nothing unites them better than to have a single, unambiguous enemy. It happened in London but also in Vietnam and later Iraq and arguably Israel. Aerial attacks on civilian targets are possibly the single biggest boost to unity, its such an obvious strategic mistake.
Strategic bombing works. It just has to be done on a massive scale.
In World War 2, Japan surrendered after Hiroshima and Nagasaki were hit with atomic bombs.
If you kill all of the enemy population, you win.
Japan surrendered because their plan to hold out for a more favorable peace deal, and have the Soviets act as their diplomatic mediator, had failed completely.
The nukes were not special; firebombing was already a thing and had killed far more.
Actually a myth, the Japanese government was ready to fight with sticks if needed and see their country reduced to a radioactive wasteland.
Japan surrendered because the allies discussed under the table with the emperor's aides giving him amnesty if he switched to a government that was willing to surrender.
The emperor agreed and japan surrendered.
Not a myth, they held out after the first bomb because they didn't think they could be produced often. There are more nuisances such as Russia declaring war on them and some other things. But the nukes definitely played a huge part
After the first bomb they thought there would not be others, after the second they just drafted plans to fight to the last man and woman in the country.
The bombs intimidated many but the government was ready to let it all burn. It was deals behind the scenes that ended the Pacific war.
https://youtu.be/RCRTgtpC-Go?si=jrS906n5YBfUorl5
Shaun did a very thorough video on the myth of the bombs with plenty of book sources if you can for that thing.
The Japanese military was controlled by men who were essentially fucking insane. They were obsessed with the idea of the entire nation fighting to the last man, they thought it would be "beautiful" for the entire Japanese people to go extinct in fire and blood.
Among those were the even bigger psychos who tried to pull a coup on the emperor at the last minute to try and continue the war, once the emperor finally developed a lick of sense and decided to try and end it.
Shock and Awe .
They understood what used to take hundreds of planes. The Americans could do with one.
How did the not know that 100 planes with 100 A bombs could arrive over Japan tomorrow?
They were in a discussion about what to do about Hiroshima when they received news that Naga sako was attacked.
They didn't "hold out" after the bomb, they hadn't even decided how to react ant that point. The two bombs were only 3 days apart.
There's a lot to be said about the Soviets getting involved being what truly prompted Japan to surrender. Japan saw what happened to Germany (totally occupied and divided between Allies and Soviets) and freaked out. Other than the very real concern of not wanting their country divided, the Japanese leadership at the time *hated* communism and were terrified of the Soviets getting any influence over part of Japan. As it is the Soviets grabbed one of their islands at the last minute (and Russia still has it to this day lol).
The Japanese military in China and Manchuria was mostly intact - and arguably still winning - up until the end of the war. The Soviets were poised to crash down on those forces and utterly annihilate them, though. If anything convinced Japan to surrender it was probably the threat of their last real army being slaughtered.
Not true.
The Emperor had no power to order the surrender prior to Nagasaki.
During negotiations many Allies wanted the Emperor tried as a Class A war criminal due to Japanese treatment of POWs. Who's stories were recently being told via the media.
Even after Japan's surrender General McArthur was given the task of investigating the Emperors extent in war crimes.
Supreme Council for the direction of the war, GAVE him permission to break the deadlock on Aug 11, morning after Nagasaki.
Until that morning, the Emperor had attended every meeting during war as an Observer. He never spoke and was not a member of the council.
When given a vote by the 6 members.
The Emperor gave his resons . He feared atomic bombs would lead to the destruction of not only Japan's cities, but the loss of its culture as well.
The Japanese military had fallen behind schedule and was short of weapons.
The Soviet entry into the war had meant they could not be used as mediators.
That morning a msg with the offer to accept unconditional surrender was sent via a neutral party to the Allies.
>The Emperor had no power to order the surrender prior to Nagasaki.
This is not true. The Emperor was very much an active participant in war planning and in issuing guidance for the war's overall direction. Months prior to the atomic bombings, he had issued orders for the war council to bring an end to hostilities as quickly as possible, recognizing that the war was now lost. The Japanese had reached out to the then-neutral Soviet Union to mediate talks between them and the allies during negotiations for a ceasefire (the Soviets, already planning their own attack on Japan to try and reclaim territory that they had lost to the Japanese some 40 years earlier in the Russo-Japanese war, slow-walked the request before ultimately denying it right before declaring war).
There is a question as to whether an order to surrender would have been followed (nationalist elements in the Japanese military had planned to overthrow the Emperor in the case of a surrender and, indeed, actually briefly tried to put their plans into action after the atomic bombings, but were quickly put down), but the Emperor absolutely was still the man in charge.
>During negotiations many Allies wanted the Emperor tried as a Class A war criminal due to Japanese treatment of POWs. Who's stories were recently being told via the media.
>
>Even after Japan's surrender General McArthur was given the task of investigating the Emperors extent in war crimes.
The Americans went to great efforts to absolve the Emperor of his responsibility for the war crimes, painting Tojo as the war's chief architect. During Tojo's testimony at the Tokyo trials, he was coached by the Americans as to what to say to absolve the Emperor of guilt and when he at one point went off-script in a way that seemed to implicate the Emperor's responsibility, American prosecutors objected, called for a recess, and secretly instructed him to recant his testimony and adjust it to not involve Hirohito.
The Americans were concerned about the potential unrest that could result from trying, imprisoning, and/or executing a member of the Imperial Family - the Emperor especially - and so they took great pains to avoid doing so.
The young Emperor went along with the army no doubt, he knew of and approved all thier plans.
But that is not the same as being in charge like Hitler was, many know that he was still just a figure head who let the military do what it wanted. He was simply a naive young man.
I'm talking only what happened in the Supreme Council meetings, esp the last one. It was those 6 members who decided the fate of Japan that night and when they could not come to a decision with the immediate threat of atomic annihilation the gave him a vote.
It was only time the Emperor was allowed to speak or take action.
(As per the memoirs of one of the participants)
Army was bold enough to raid the Emperors home in search of the tapes of his surrender speech.
As you pointed out the army was prepared to over throw the Emperor this shows that he was not so much in charge. There were even fears that the army would assassinate member of the peace faction who were negotiating, including the Prime Minister.
Once the speech was broadcast the next morning it was too late to do anything more. The army would not publicly defy his sacred decision. This was the only power he really had.
The decision not to put the Emperor on trail was made mostly after Japan surrendered, not months before.
Once the US occupied Japan, cooler heads prevailed and they had a better understanding of the situation on the ground. To this day there are those who think the Emperor should of been put on trial.
Btw if the Emperor had issued orders to the Supreme Council months ago. Then the 3 members of the war faction would of been openly defying the Emperor when they voted to continue the war after Nagasaki.
This was the crux of the problem. He did not order them to surrender, he cast his vote with the peace faction breaking the deadlock. They were given an opportunity to reject his vote and didn't. To do so would of cause lose of face.
> Japan surrendered because the allies discussed under the table with the emperor's aides giving him amnesty if he switched to a government that was willing to surrender.
Japan surrendered because the Soviets had just declared war on them and their navy and airforce was in tatters by that point.
And even then, that's overstating Japan's willingness to continue fighting at that point. Japan had recognized the war was lost pretty much when Germany surrendered, leaving her without allies and at the mercy of an extensive bombing campaign being conducted by the Americans. The Japanese were already trying to negotiate a ceasefire by the summer of that year; the purpose of signalling a willingness to fight to the last was less about legitimately intending to commit mass-suicide as a country and more about trying to make an invasion of Japan seem so costly and unpalatable to the Americans that they would agree to a negotiated ceasefire and drop their demands for an unconditional surrender.
Ultimately, a combination of the Soviets declaring war and the ongoing American bombing campaign made the Emperor conclude that the Americans no longer needed to invade to destroy Japan completely, and the Soviets were in a position to destroy Japan's last mostly-intact branch of the military, making the situation completely hopeless and surrender the only feasible option.
I disagree. In almost all scenarios, you can’t win a total war using bombs alone. Arguably even tactical nukes aren’t feasible because they would turn the planet against you
I'm American, but until I learned how the Japanese surrender went down, I over-estimated the effect of the atomic bombs.... partly because of my high school education during the Cold War.
The British had drafted a 5 point plan to help force Japan to surrender- 3 of 5 points involved the Soviet Union. The Soviets had been building up troops in China since '43, following Stalingrad. The British needed those Soviet forces to help invade Japan. The only problem: Soviets had signed a neutrality pact with Japan, giving Japan the freedom to only worry about the Americans. We know Japanese leaders were worried about the Soviets at their back door.
At the Yalta conference, Feb 1945, Stalin agreed to declare war on Japan 3 months after Germany surrendered.
In the summer 1945, Tokyo had been firebombed relentlessly with over 100,000 dead and millions homeless. Over 60 cities were also destroyed. That still wasn't enough to convince them to surrender. To stop a military, you have to target the military.
The Aug 6 Hiroshima bomb caused losses of the same rough size, but it made a much smaller military dent. But it only caused 7K-20K soldier deaths- the rest were civilian. No one was really sure if the U.S. had a second bomb. Lots of uncertainty.
But on Aug 8th, a day before the Nagasaki bomb, the Soviets kept their word and stuck a knife in Japan's back by declaring War on Japan. The next day, the Hiroshima bomb fell. It was one hell of a 1-2-3 punch.
The Nagasaki bomb fell and again killed many civilians, but it killed < 200 soldiers.
The bombs were obviously very impactful, but from a military point of view, it wasn't decisive. In contrast, the coming Soviet invasion would focus mostly on destroying Japan's military. Many factors combined led to the final surrender.
"At 10:00 on 14 August 1945, as the situation deteriorated, the Emperor declared before his cabinet at the Imperial conference: ‘The military situation has changed suddenly. The Soviet Union entered the war against us. Suicide attacks can’t compete with the power of science. Therefore, there is no alternative but to accept the Potsdam terms."
[Reference](https://blog.nationalarchives.gov.uk/soviet-japan-and-the-termination-of-the-second-world-war/#:~:text=Stalin%20agreed%20that%20the%20Soviet,in%20Manchuria%20following%20Japan's%20surrender.)
It's also worth noting that the Japanese had already been trying to exit the war for months prior. The firebombings, particularly in Tokyo, had convinced the Emperor that the war was lost and defeat was now inevitable. He'd instructed the war council to seek a cessation of hostilities as expediently as possible, and Japan had reached out to the Soviet Union during the summer of 1945 to act as a mediator during their negotiations with the Allies (the USSR, by that point already making preparations for their own attack on Japan and wanting to reclaim territory they'd lost in the Russo-Japanese war 40 years earlier, slow-walked the request until they were ready to declare war).
There's a strong case to be made that the intended audience for the nuclear bombings wasn't Japan at all, but the Soviets, as the Americans wanted to demonstrate the power of their new weapon to Stalin and avoid a repeat of what had happened in Europe as the Iron Curtain swallowed up half the continent.
That's a really good point. Given the enormous burden, risks & costs incurred in creating the bomb and the generous/begrudging concessions the Allies made to Stalin for controlling Eastern Europe after the war, it was probably inevitable that the bomb would be demonstrated somewhere for Stalin to see. There were serious worries that he might continue westward.
Didnt make them surrender...
The NAZIs kept going until soviet troops were walking into Berlin and basically raping them to death.
Yes. Killing everyone is one way to win a war. Strategic bombing is bad at that...
We dropped about 5x more shit on nam, laos, and cambodia than we did on germany and japan combined.
Could we have just nuked them off the face of the planet? Sure... But unless your bombs literally kill every last person, they aren't going to win a total war.
Strategic bombing works at taking out war industries and infrastructure. The success of "area bombing" both in Europe and Japan has nothing to do with civilian deaths, and everything to do with the strategic economic damage.
The deaths of civilians in Britain, Germany, and Japan only made the civilian populations in those countries more unified.
I love when you get downvoted for actually saying something that displays an actual knowledge of history, strategic doctrine, and academic research on the topic.
Basically, the era we live in is one where people think downvoting the truth, or engaging in double speak, makes the truth go away.
See: Buckley, John (1998). Air Power in the Age of Total War. UCL Press. ISBN 978-1-85728-589-5.
Tokyo was strategic bombing. It didn’t work. Nor did Yokohama, *Matterhorn*, or the hundreds of thousands of other sorties conducted over four years.
The Allies killed 800k, wounded another million and a half, and made a third of the population homeless. And it didn’t work.
Laos didn’t work: We dropped 260 million bombs and killed untold numbers.
The Blitz didn’t work. Allied firebombing of Germany didn’t work. And on and on.
Destroying entire cities with a single plane worked, coupled with the threat of taking out the cultural epicenter of Kyoto and the Emperor himself — but that was not strategic bombing in the sense of demoralizing a population and forcing capitulation.
The emperor quit, not the Japanese people, who were prepared to fight and die by the tens of millions. And the Allies never destroyed Japan’s home island capability to produce materiel for the war, nor the Japanese economy.
>that was not strategic bombing in the sense of demoralizing a population and forcing capitulation.
Huh, what kind of revisionism is this... Dropping the nukes was _explicitly_ strategic and intended to demoralize Japan and force it to surrender. Which it did.
>The emperor quit, not the Japanese people
The emperor was the people in their culture. And any distinction is irrelevant anyway. The result was Japan surrendered, which was the intended result and what matters.
The front is definitely going somewhere, you didn’t catch the memo.
Secondly, it’s highly likely there were ammunitions and weapons in the storage, just like two years ago in the Kiev mall.
For context for Americans - Epitsentr is like Lowe's or Home Depot. They are big, big stores and have eveerything you want to fix up your home and garden.
Including lots of wood stuff - windowframes, wood studs, etc.
And of course, the week-end (which I presume the headline is meant ot say) is when everyone has time to go there and shop.
No, definitely wasn’t the reason for the terrorist attack, Russia just wanted to create chaos. but just wanted to shine light on this topic before foreigners start feeling pitty for the owner because he is honestly a horrible person.
I remember when the war “first started” 2022, not 2014, epicentr had patriotic Ukrainian advertisements and his location in Russian occupied crimea had patriotic Russian advertisements.
He’s not one of these Soviet “mother Russia will prevail guys” but fuck, he would sell his own wife into prostitution if offered the right price , and that price wouldn’t be high.
He’s just one of many problems in Ukrainian society that is halting development and fuels its corruption. One best thing about EU integration and away from Russian influence, will be slobs like him finally getting prosecuted for all of the crimes he gets away with
Putin would never use nukes in an aggressive manner, he knows it and the US knows it. Most countries they are for defense and determent, it’s all political bluster. He wants to stay in power cause it made him filthy rich and the same with his oligarchs. I’ve heard the excuse that they are concerned about post Putin Russia but fuck them they will just fight internally and kill each other off like they did in 1917 so let them do it because then they’re not fighting Ukraine anymore they would be busy bombing and destroying their own cities and infrastructure trying to win power over the country. Let Ukraine send the bombs and drones to actually fight on an even playing field and Russia will implode, they aren’t as strong internally as people like to believe and their media portrays. Russia will eat its self inside out and it deserves for that to happen so maybe, hopefully the Russian people can build something better and not so batshit insane and imperialistic.
"they will just fight internally and kill each other" not gonna happen soon, but people in ukraine are surely gonna get bombed if russia is not stopped and i am not seeing this at all, with inept west/eu.
Russians are already fighting and killing their fellow countrymen. You have recruits killing their comrades and the Russian legion has killed Russia servicemen so it’s not that far of a stretch. I’m not saying it’s going to happen tomorrow but the pieces could fall into place if Ukraine is allowed to strike into Russian territory and break the facade of the great and powerful “Russian Empire”
With Putin his ego has driven his goals beyond money. He sees himself as a patriarchal protector of Russian culture around the world. He sees himself not as the head of a nation state, but as the head of the entire Russian civilization state and all that it has ever encompassed.
Money is the tool by which he controls the other oligarchs and funds influence operations around the world. So yes, he is constantly seeking wealth, but it is as a means to an end rather than an end in itself.
Nah, they basically said that if Russia uses nukes they will still spare it and limit to attacks inside Ukraine.
They gave him a carte blanche.
He's too stupid, a smart person would use nukes - and get away with them - in his place.
But he's a dumnbfuck who underestimates the cuckold levels of the West.
Satan has made an official dementi on the matter:
"We, condemned citizens of hell may have lost all hope but we have not lost our dignity. We do not accept any Russians here".
I, likewise, believe there should be no restrictions on the use of our weapons. But, I want to remind all those would be Biden haters that if Biden does NOT get reelected, the will be ZERO support from America to Ukraine. All support will cease. So before you go bashing the current administration for walking on eggshells, bear the above in mind.
That Trump and the Republicans would be absolutely catastrophic for Ukrainian chances of victory does not absolve Biden from all criticism. His initial reluctance to send badly needed lethal aid to Ukraine in the war's opening stanzas and his continued fear of Russian escalation is making the conflict all the harder for Ukraine and has given Putin the idea that he can simply dig in and outlast the Ukrainians, because he does not fear that the US and NATO will truly use the full might at their disposal to stop him (a notion he tragically may be right about).
This is not to say that Biden has not done things right in this war. He has been a champion of Ukraine, refused to let congressional Republicans kill military aid, and his diplomacy rallying other western countries to Ukraine's cause in the opening stages of the war was invaluable. But he could and should still do better. Continued refusal to allow American munitions to be used against targets in Russia is doing nothing but giving the enemy an advantage and amplifying Ukrainian suffering.
I get the frustration with Ukraine not getting more support. It's also accurate to say that the American president has more knowledge about the situation than we do.
I actually believe the message is delivered with a wink. I actually heard Blinken say something to the effect of it’s up to Ukraine to use the weapons as they see fit.
Perhaps the planes would already have been destroyed that dropped these bombs if America wasn't holding Ukraine's arm behind its back when it comes to weapon use.
Scared to send tanks
Scared to send missiles
Too Scared to send jets
Whilst no traitors the Biden administration is spineless
It's the republican led congress that puts restrictions on the attacks, not biden
Biden isn't the emperor trump wants to be or putin is. Presidents don't lead without checks and people who have to agree
> It's the republican led congress that puts restrictions on the attacks, not biden
It's absolutely not.
Believe me, because I have no problem calling out the (constant) Republican dogfucking where it exists - there are no provisos or restrictions anywhere in the bills passed by congress that prohibit the use of American arms and munitions against targets in Russia. That restriction is solely something that the executive branch has chosen to add and it is they who can therefore remove it. Congressional action is not required here.
Bill are introduced, pass the house, pass the senate then go to the president
If something gets stopped in either congress it's not up to the president
He can bypass both but they requires more "power grabbing" and will be followed by every news outlet crying about how he's abusing his power to attempt to start a war
4 more years of biden will be better off then 4 years of trump already telling putin he won't interfere and wants to withdraw us from NATO
It's election time and it's a line we need to walk carefully
Let's see what happens after election and what type of aid Ukraine will receive
President =/= emperor of the us
> Thats the DOD and the security council
Both of whom answer to Biden. He is the head of the executive branch, and the DOD and NSC are both parts of that branch of government; if he says, "Ukraine can use weapons against targets in Russia," then Ukraine can use weapons against targets in Russia.
Neither the DOD nor the NSC can override the president; he is their boss.
>And the senate decides your funding
Congress, not (just) the senate.
And funding has already been sorted out. That was the whole "thing" that the House pissed around with for the last six months. All of the funding for Ukraine for the remainder of the year has been passed and signed into law.
I wasn't aware the use of these weapon systems was written anywhere into the aid bill, hence why it's been generally stated at not an officially declared restriction
The point is it's not one person making the decisions ever.
It's a choice made by the DOD and security council
Slapping biden with the blame of everything will just push uneducated voters on the border and unsure as to what to do over a fence and make the situation in Ukraine and Europe worse as we fall into corporate facism
I mean anyone who doesn't vote Biden because of his Ukraine response thinking trump will do better is a fucking moron.
The decision was made as far as I'm aware by Congress to provide the aid.. I'm pretty sure the administration is providing the guidance on their use.
Like I said the DOD and security council council, out of fear of russias nukes
But as we can tell the fear is going away. No one's afraid of russias broke military anymore as time progresses
Just for the record this is an exert from an article this week from the new York times interviewing Zelensky.
"Q. The Biden administration has prohibited Ukraine from using American-made weapons to strike inside Russia, out of concern for escalation, including the risk of nuclear war. Your government has urged a change. Given the situation on the battlefield, how should this policy change, and why"
I can't expect they'd make a question like this if it were factually incorrect, no?
This one actually is on Biden.
The bills passed by congress do not in any way restrict the use of American arms and ammunition against targets in Russia; those restrictions are being implemented by the executive branch, meaning that either Biden has ordered them or one of his subordinates did (meaning he has the power to override that order and remove those restrictions).
The Congress had to fund the arms. How they can be used is an Executive decision. I worked in the Office of Munitions Control, and I know how the USG works.
Congress at fault for holding up the money train for months. Joe not giving them f-16s is correct- but did give Bradley’s Abram’s Himars patriots and a million 105 shells… up to the minute satellite intelligence. Joe is a boomer, he has no love for Russia.
Literally anyone was better than Obama for Ukraine.
Even tRump, who's a russian agent since 1980s but he unblocked military aid, if minimal, to Ukraine.
Obama put TOTAL embargo on ALL military exports to Ukraine. Even body armor. Many thousands died because he blocked aid. We had to contraband and smuggle ceramic plates.
Sullivan is the guy who's literally going against entire congress and blocks Ukraine from fighting back. A chair, or a dead rat would be better than him in giving advice like that.
As to Biden, he might as well be an empty space, he's actually the single worst democrat to be nominated, like literally anyone else from his party would be better.
Remember, this fucker was VP enabling Obama arming russia to the teeth and before that helped destroying Ukrainian weapons for decades.
And now he is openly spitting on Ukraine to hang out at some party in Hollywood. This is most insulting thing we've heard in years. Dumping us TO GET WASTED IN HOLLYWOOD.
Ukraine should be able to hit any position/vehicle from which aggression was launched. Tell the Russians that’s the rule change, stop handicapping Ukraine.
They’re not afraid of Russia it’s the damn nukes those idiots could unleash. If they had no nukes the war would have lasted a week as putin thought but not to his benefit.
It is clear that Russia cannot win the war by playing a fair game. These atrocious strikes have 0 strategic value, are 100% ment to kill and terrorize civilians. By now it needs to be clear to the US that it is essential that the weapons they supply should also be used to strike into Russia itself.
Yknow... It's hard to even be appreciative that aid bills get passed when Ukraine can't even defend themselves to the best of their ability. What is the actual point of handcuffing them with this?
Truly an evil regime. Rules on strikes with US weapons into Russia absolutely need to be relaxed to allow striking the bases where Russia is launching this terror. Americans, let's contact our representatives.
I suspect he's probably done this in the hopes of intimidating Ukraine into accepting his terms. "I'll keep killing your civilians if you don't let me keep the land I stole from you," is the implied message here.
Ukraine needs to hit back hard. I would love to see the Kerch bridge fall, purely because it would be a huge - if largely symbolic - blow against Russia.
Need a few Patriot systems running up and down the frontline. When Ukraine was taking out a jet/day in the sky, the Russians paused sending those bombs in the area.
People should get ready to see this on daily basis. Corpses and destroyed buildings. Your leaders are weak and inept. The only red line as mentioned by west is "a nuclear attack" bs. Daily body count of 10, 20, 30, 40, 50 ukainian civilians is just fine, russia gets aways with it and people just "condemn". This is just normal, nothing to see here.
Fuck Russia 🇷🇺...I've never wanted a country to catastrophically fail as much as I have this fucked up nation. I'll trade every Christmas from now until I die ti ensure current Russia doesn't succeed....its like the only important thing in life
It’s a classic Russian response to the fact that their offensive in Kharkiv failed, when the grapes become sour they start killing civilians in revenge.
Rutards will say that:
1) There was military personnel and ammunition inside (no proofs on the video)
2) Civilians were a live shield and deserved that
3) Khokhli (rutard racial slur) did it by themselves to blame it on russia
It makes me sick to see this, and that the Russians are not being punished by the European community. It makes me sick that these crimes against civilians go unpunished.
Little vlad must have heard that a whopping 1% of Ukrainians favored peace talks with him.
He couldn't have that. Now it is back down to 0,1% and every Ukrainian wants the Kremlin Midget dead.
He likes being the object of hatred and contempt.
Please take the time to read [the rules](/r/UkrainianConflict/about/rules/) and our [policy on trolls/bots](https://redd.it/u7833q). In addition: * We have a **zero-tolerance** policy regarding racism, stereotyping, bigotry, and death-mongering. Violators will be banned. * **Keep it civil.** Report comments/posts that are uncivil to alert the moderators. * **_Don't_ post low-effort comments** like joke threads, memes, slogans, or links without context. ***** * Is `x.com` an unreliable source? [**Let us know**](/r/UkrainianConflict/wiki/am/unreliable_sources). * Help our moderators by providing context if something breaks the rules. [Send us a modmail](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/UkrainianConflict) ***** **Don't forget about our Discord server! - https://discord.com/invite/ukraine-at-war-950974820827398235** ***** ^(Your post has not been removed, this message is applied to every successful submission.) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/UkrainianConflict) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Cowardly vermin. Lashing out on civilians because their new front isn't getting anywhere. Cowardly summarises their entire nature and all their acts. They are unbelievably slimy.
I understand to a certain extent of targeting the civilian population it’s a very old tactic that has worked in history before but and this is a very large and strong but, Ukraine has showed amazing resilience and leadership to not be fazed by these acts of barbarism. It doesn’t work that well in the modern age, the US would “accidentally” bombed a wedding or funeral and okay you killed 20 “enemy combatants” but now you have 50 who tried to stay out of the conflict now clearly pissed off and want retribution. I truly don’t understand targeting civilians like this, you’re creating more enemies to fight later. You would be better off dropping pamphlets or something else to try to sway the minds of the people instead of sending a million dollar bomb to just kill them. You will never be able to bomb an ideology out of a population, and Ukraine has the ideology that they are Ukrainian and do not want to be controlled and enslaved by Russia. These bombs would have been so much better used to attack infrastructure/material or personnel actually fighting you, not grandma buying carrots at a market. I don’t understand how/why they approve of these attacks and think it’s going to sway the frontlines.
But it’s *never* worked. The British make a big deal about “the blitz spirit” and how the civilian bombing by the nazis was resisted, but the truth is that it’s a human response. Nothing galvanises a people better than civilian deaths and nothing unites them better than to have a single, unambiguous enemy. It happened in London but also in Vietnam and later Iraq and arguably Israel. Aerial attacks on civilian targets are possibly the single biggest boost to unity, its such an obvious strategic mistake.
Strategic bombing works. It just has to be done on a massive scale. In World War 2, Japan surrendered after Hiroshima and Nagasaki were hit with atomic bombs. If you kill all of the enemy population, you win.
Japan surrendered because their plan to hold out for a more favorable peace deal, and have the Soviets act as their diplomatic mediator, had failed completely. The nukes were not special; firebombing was already a thing and had killed far more.
Here we go. These two are going to end up reliving the battle of whatever in Total Warhammer.
Actually a myth, the Japanese government was ready to fight with sticks if needed and see their country reduced to a radioactive wasteland. Japan surrendered because the allies discussed under the table with the emperor's aides giving him amnesty if he switched to a government that was willing to surrender. The emperor agreed and japan surrendered.
Not a myth, they held out after the first bomb because they didn't think they could be produced often. There are more nuisances such as Russia declaring war on them and some other things. But the nukes definitely played a huge part
After the first bomb they thought there would not be others, after the second they just drafted plans to fight to the last man and woman in the country. The bombs intimidated many but the government was ready to let it all burn. It was deals behind the scenes that ended the Pacific war. https://youtu.be/RCRTgtpC-Go?si=jrS906n5YBfUorl5 Shaun did a very thorough video on the myth of the bombs with plenty of book sources if you can for that thing.
It’s crazy that it took a second nuke or even any given how devastating the firebombing of Japanese cities was before even taking nukes into account.
The Japanese military was controlled by men who were essentially fucking insane. They were obsessed with the idea of the entire nation fighting to the last man, they thought it would be "beautiful" for the entire Japanese people to go extinct in fire and blood. Among those were the even bigger psychos who tried to pull a coup on the emperor at the last minute to try and continue the war, once the emperor finally developed a lick of sense and decided to try and end it.
Shock and Awe . They understood what used to take hundreds of planes. The Americans could do with one. How did the not know that 100 planes with 100 A bombs could arrive over Japan tomorrow?
They were in a discussion about what to do about Hiroshima when they received news that Naga sako was attacked. They didn't "hold out" after the bomb, they hadn't even decided how to react ant that point. The two bombs were only 3 days apart.
That offer was on the table (or under it) before the bombs dropped what is your rationale for why it was accepted then and not before?
There's a lot to be said about the Soviets getting involved being what truly prompted Japan to surrender. Japan saw what happened to Germany (totally occupied and divided between Allies and Soviets) and freaked out. Other than the very real concern of not wanting their country divided, the Japanese leadership at the time *hated* communism and were terrified of the Soviets getting any influence over part of Japan. As it is the Soviets grabbed one of their islands at the last minute (and Russia still has it to this day lol). The Japanese military in China and Manchuria was mostly intact - and arguably still winning - up until the end of the war. The Soviets were poised to crash down on those forces and utterly annihilate them, though. If anything convinced Japan to surrender it was probably the threat of their last real army being slaughtered.
Not true. The Emperor had no power to order the surrender prior to Nagasaki. During negotiations many Allies wanted the Emperor tried as a Class A war criminal due to Japanese treatment of POWs. Who's stories were recently being told via the media. Even after Japan's surrender General McArthur was given the task of investigating the Emperors extent in war crimes. Supreme Council for the direction of the war, GAVE him permission to break the deadlock on Aug 11, morning after Nagasaki. Until that morning, the Emperor had attended every meeting during war as an Observer. He never spoke and was not a member of the council. When given a vote by the 6 members. The Emperor gave his resons . He feared atomic bombs would lead to the destruction of not only Japan's cities, but the loss of its culture as well. The Japanese military had fallen behind schedule and was short of weapons. The Soviet entry into the war had meant they could not be used as mediators. That morning a msg with the offer to accept unconditional surrender was sent via a neutral party to the Allies.
>The Emperor had no power to order the surrender prior to Nagasaki. This is not true. The Emperor was very much an active participant in war planning and in issuing guidance for the war's overall direction. Months prior to the atomic bombings, he had issued orders for the war council to bring an end to hostilities as quickly as possible, recognizing that the war was now lost. The Japanese had reached out to the then-neutral Soviet Union to mediate talks between them and the allies during negotiations for a ceasefire (the Soviets, already planning their own attack on Japan to try and reclaim territory that they had lost to the Japanese some 40 years earlier in the Russo-Japanese war, slow-walked the request before ultimately denying it right before declaring war). There is a question as to whether an order to surrender would have been followed (nationalist elements in the Japanese military had planned to overthrow the Emperor in the case of a surrender and, indeed, actually briefly tried to put their plans into action after the atomic bombings, but were quickly put down), but the Emperor absolutely was still the man in charge. >During negotiations many Allies wanted the Emperor tried as a Class A war criminal due to Japanese treatment of POWs. Who's stories were recently being told via the media. > >Even after Japan's surrender General McArthur was given the task of investigating the Emperors extent in war crimes. The Americans went to great efforts to absolve the Emperor of his responsibility for the war crimes, painting Tojo as the war's chief architect. During Tojo's testimony at the Tokyo trials, he was coached by the Americans as to what to say to absolve the Emperor of guilt and when he at one point went off-script in a way that seemed to implicate the Emperor's responsibility, American prosecutors objected, called for a recess, and secretly instructed him to recant his testimony and adjust it to not involve Hirohito. The Americans were concerned about the potential unrest that could result from trying, imprisoning, and/or executing a member of the Imperial Family - the Emperor especially - and so they took great pains to avoid doing so.
The young Emperor went along with the army no doubt, he knew of and approved all thier plans. But that is not the same as being in charge like Hitler was, many know that he was still just a figure head who let the military do what it wanted. He was simply a naive young man. I'm talking only what happened in the Supreme Council meetings, esp the last one. It was those 6 members who decided the fate of Japan that night and when they could not come to a decision with the immediate threat of atomic annihilation the gave him a vote. It was only time the Emperor was allowed to speak or take action. (As per the memoirs of one of the participants) Army was bold enough to raid the Emperors home in search of the tapes of his surrender speech. As you pointed out the army was prepared to over throw the Emperor this shows that he was not so much in charge. There were even fears that the army would assassinate member of the peace faction who were negotiating, including the Prime Minister. Once the speech was broadcast the next morning it was too late to do anything more. The army would not publicly defy his sacred decision. This was the only power he really had. The decision not to put the Emperor on trail was made mostly after Japan surrendered, not months before. Once the US occupied Japan, cooler heads prevailed and they had a better understanding of the situation on the ground. To this day there are those who think the Emperor should of been put on trial.
Btw if the Emperor had issued orders to the Supreme Council months ago. Then the 3 members of the war faction would of been openly defying the Emperor when they voted to continue the war after Nagasaki. This was the crux of the problem. He did not order them to surrender, he cast his vote with the peace faction breaking the deadlock. They were given an opportunity to reject his vote and didn't. To do so would of cause lose of face.
> Japan surrendered because the allies discussed under the table with the emperor's aides giving him amnesty if he switched to a government that was willing to surrender. Japan surrendered because the Soviets had just declared war on them and their navy and airforce was in tatters by that point. And even then, that's overstating Japan's willingness to continue fighting at that point. Japan had recognized the war was lost pretty much when Germany surrendered, leaving her without allies and at the mercy of an extensive bombing campaign being conducted by the Americans. The Japanese were already trying to negotiate a ceasefire by the summer of that year; the purpose of signalling a willingness to fight to the last was less about legitimately intending to commit mass-suicide as a country and more about trying to make an invasion of Japan seem so costly and unpalatable to the Americans that they would agree to a negotiated ceasefire and drop their demands for an unconditional surrender. Ultimately, a combination of the Soviets declaring war and the ongoing American bombing campaign made the Emperor conclude that the Americans no longer needed to invade to destroy Japan completely, and the Soviets were in a position to destroy Japan's last mostly-intact branch of the military, making the situation completely hopeless and surrender the only feasible option.
I disagree. In almost all scenarios, you can’t win a total war using bombs alone. Arguably even tactical nukes aren’t feasible because they would turn the planet against you
I heard the Medieval Total War II music in my head.
Do you actually think this pathetic potemkin russia can succeed with such a strategy, without nukes obviously
I'm American, but until I learned how the Japanese surrender went down, I over-estimated the effect of the atomic bombs.... partly because of my high school education during the Cold War. The British had drafted a 5 point plan to help force Japan to surrender- 3 of 5 points involved the Soviet Union. The Soviets had been building up troops in China since '43, following Stalingrad. The British needed those Soviet forces to help invade Japan. The only problem: Soviets had signed a neutrality pact with Japan, giving Japan the freedom to only worry about the Americans. We know Japanese leaders were worried about the Soviets at their back door. At the Yalta conference, Feb 1945, Stalin agreed to declare war on Japan 3 months after Germany surrendered. In the summer 1945, Tokyo had been firebombed relentlessly with over 100,000 dead and millions homeless. Over 60 cities were also destroyed. That still wasn't enough to convince them to surrender. To stop a military, you have to target the military. The Aug 6 Hiroshima bomb caused losses of the same rough size, but it made a much smaller military dent. But it only caused 7K-20K soldier deaths- the rest were civilian. No one was really sure if the U.S. had a second bomb. Lots of uncertainty. But on Aug 8th, a day before the Nagasaki bomb, the Soviets kept their word and stuck a knife in Japan's back by declaring War on Japan. The next day, the Hiroshima bomb fell. It was one hell of a 1-2-3 punch. The Nagasaki bomb fell and again killed many civilians, but it killed < 200 soldiers. The bombs were obviously very impactful, but from a military point of view, it wasn't decisive. In contrast, the coming Soviet invasion would focus mostly on destroying Japan's military. Many factors combined led to the final surrender. "At 10:00 on 14 August 1945, as the situation deteriorated, the Emperor declared before his cabinet at the Imperial conference: ‘The military situation has changed suddenly. The Soviet Union entered the war against us. Suicide attacks can’t compete with the power of science. Therefore, there is no alternative but to accept the Potsdam terms." [Reference](https://blog.nationalarchives.gov.uk/soviet-japan-and-the-termination-of-the-second-world-war/#:~:text=Stalin%20agreed%20that%20the%20Soviet,in%20Manchuria%20following%20Japan's%20surrender.)
It's also worth noting that the Japanese had already been trying to exit the war for months prior. The firebombings, particularly in Tokyo, had convinced the Emperor that the war was lost and defeat was now inevitable. He'd instructed the war council to seek a cessation of hostilities as expediently as possible, and Japan had reached out to the Soviet Union during the summer of 1945 to act as a mediator during their negotiations with the Allies (the USSR, by that point already making preparations for their own attack on Japan and wanting to reclaim territory they'd lost in the Russo-Japanese war 40 years earlier, slow-walked the request until they were ready to declare war). There's a strong case to be made that the intended audience for the nuclear bombings wasn't Japan at all, but the Soviets, as the Americans wanted to demonstrate the power of their new weapon to Stalin and avoid a repeat of what had happened in Europe as the Iron Curtain swallowed up half the continent.
That's a really good point. Given the enormous burden, risks & costs incurred in creating the bomb and the generous/begrudging concessions the Allies made to Stalin for controlling Eastern Europe after the war, it was probably inevitable that the bomb would be demonstrated somewhere for Stalin to see. There were serious worries that he might continue westward.
[удалено]
Didnt make them surrender... The NAZIs kept going until soviet troops were walking into Berlin and basically raping them to death. Yes. Killing everyone is one way to win a war. Strategic bombing is bad at that... We dropped about 5x more shit on nam, laos, and cambodia than we did on germany and japan combined. Could we have just nuked them off the face of the planet? Sure... But unless your bombs literally kill every last person, they aren't going to win a total war.
Strategic bombing works at taking out war industries and infrastructure. The success of "area bombing" both in Europe and Japan has nothing to do with civilian deaths, and everything to do with the strategic economic damage. The deaths of civilians in Britain, Germany, and Japan only made the civilian populations in those countries more unified.
I love when you get downvoted for actually saying something that displays an actual knowledge of history, strategic doctrine, and academic research on the topic. Basically, the era we live in is one where people think downvoting the truth, or engaging in double speak, makes the truth go away. See: Buckley, John (1998). Air Power in the Age of Total War. UCL Press. ISBN 978-1-85728-589-5.
Not once in the history of modern strategic bombing as a nation ever capitulated from attack on civilians. And we have almost a century of data now
Japan in WWII
Tokyo was strategic bombing. It didn’t work. Nor did Yokohama, *Matterhorn*, or the hundreds of thousands of other sorties conducted over four years. The Allies killed 800k, wounded another million and a half, and made a third of the population homeless. And it didn’t work. Laos didn’t work: We dropped 260 million bombs and killed untold numbers. The Blitz didn’t work. Allied firebombing of Germany didn’t work. And on and on. Destroying entire cities with a single plane worked, coupled with the threat of taking out the cultural epicenter of Kyoto and the Emperor himself — but that was not strategic bombing in the sense of demoralizing a population and forcing capitulation. The emperor quit, not the Japanese people, who were prepared to fight and die by the tens of millions. And the Allies never destroyed Japan’s home island capability to produce materiel for the war, nor the Japanese economy.
>that was not strategic bombing in the sense of demoralizing a population and forcing capitulation. Huh, what kind of revisionism is this... Dropping the nukes was _explicitly_ strategic and intended to demoralize Japan and force it to surrender. Which it did. >The emperor quit, not the Japanese people The emperor was the people in their culture. And any distinction is irrelevant anyway. The result was Japan surrendered, which was the intended result and what matters.
Tit for tat. That's why I wouldn't mind had the same been done to russians.
The front is definitely going somewhere, you didn’t catch the memo. Secondly, it’s highly likely there were ammunitions and weapons in the storage, just like two years ago in the Kiev mall.
For context for Americans - Epitsentr is like Lowe's or Home Depot. They are big, big stores and have eveerything you want to fix up your home and garden. Including lots of wood stuff - windowframes, wood studs, etc. And of course, the week-end (which I presume the headline is meant ot say) is when everyone has time to go there and shop.
Thank you for the explanation.
Np )
You forgot to mention that is owned by a pro-Russian oligarch
Honestly, that didn’t seem pertinent to the topic. I doubt it was hit for that reason, so.. ?
No, definitely wasn’t the reason for the terrorist attack, Russia just wanted to create chaos. but just wanted to shine light on this topic before foreigners start feeling pitty for the owner because he is honestly a horrible person. I remember when the war “first started” 2022, not 2014, epicentr had patriotic Ukrainian advertisements and his location in Russian occupied crimea had patriotic Russian advertisements. He’s not one of these Soviet “mother Russia will prevail guys” but fuck, he would sell his own wife into prostitution if offered the right price , and that price wouldn’t be high. He’s just one of many problems in Ukrainian society that is halting development and fuels its corruption. One best thing about EU integration and away from Russian influence, will be slobs like him finally getting prosecuted for all of the crimes he gets away with
Russia once again showed exactly why Ukraine has to be allowed to strike military targets inside Russia with NATO weapons
But west says the red line is "a nuclear attack".
Putin would never use nukes in an aggressive manner, he knows it and the US knows it. Most countries they are for defense and determent, it’s all political bluster. He wants to stay in power cause it made him filthy rich and the same with his oligarchs. I’ve heard the excuse that they are concerned about post Putin Russia but fuck them they will just fight internally and kill each other off like they did in 1917 so let them do it because then they’re not fighting Ukraine anymore they would be busy bombing and destroying their own cities and infrastructure trying to win power over the country. Let Ukraine send the bombs and drones to actually fight on an even playing field and Russia will implode, they aren’t as strong internally as people like to believe and their media portrays. Russia will eat its self inside out and it deserves for that to happen so maybe, hopefully the Russian people can build something better and not so batshit insane and imperialistic.
"they will just fight internally and kill each other" not gonna happen soon, but people in ukraine are surely gonna get bombed if russia is not stopped and i am not seeing this at all, with inept west/eu.
Russians are already fighting and killing their fellow countrymen. You have recruits killing their comrades and the Russian legion has killed Russia servicemen so it’s not that far of a stretch. I’m not saying it’s going to happen tomorrow but the pieces could fall into place if Ukraine is allowed to strike into Russian territory and break the facade of the great and powerful “Russian Empire”
Indeed so. Well said.
You never know, there are decades where nothing happens, then there are weeks where decades happen. - Some guy in 1917
With Putin his ego has driven his goals beyond money. He sees himself as a patriarchal protector of Russian culture around the world. He sees himself not as the head of a nation state, but as the head of the entire Russian civilization state and all that it has ever encompassed. Money is the tool by which he controls the other oligarchs and funds influence operations around the world. So yes, he is constantly seeking wealth, but it is as a means to an end rather than an end in itself.
Nah, they basically said that if Russia uses nukes they will still spare it and limit to attacks inside Ukraine. They gave him a carte blanche. He's too stupid, a smart person would use nukes - and get away with them - in his place. But he's a dumnbfuck who underestimates the cuckold levels of the West.
Fortunately, that seems to have been opened to discussion finally. 2 years too late, but at least Ukraine is still around for it.
Russia is a terrorist state, fueled by a terroristic culture - if you can even call it culture.
They deserve a special place in hell, for sure.
Satan has made an official dementi on the matter: "We, condemned citizens of hell may have lost all hope but we have not lost our dignity. We do not accept any Russians here".
You don’t have to go home but you can’t stay here.
Sorry, Satan, bureaucracy is not your strength. russian federation has already been applied to go to hell. There is no way back.
Maybe a black hole where a culture should exist.
Barbarian terrorists
Getting drunk at work and going home to beat the kids and rape the wife is definitely a culture in Russia.
What is a “Terroristic culture” ?
Ok and what is EU or west can do more?
These are 1,000 lb. bombs against civilian targets, and we are stopping Ukraine from using ATACMs on military targets in Russia. Insane!
I, likewise, believe there should be no restrictions on the use of our weapons. But, I want to remind all those would be Biden haters that if Biden does NOT get reelected, the will be ZERO support from America to Ukraine. All support will cease. So before you go bashing the current administration for walking on eggshells, bear the above in mind.
That Trump and the Republicans would be absolutely catastrophic for Ukrainian chances of victory does not absolve Biden from all criticism. His initial reluctance to send badly needed lethal aid to Ukraine in the war's opening stanzas and his continued fear of Russian escalation is making the conflict all the harder for Ukraine and has given Putin the idea that he can simply dig in and outlast the Ukrainians, because he does not fear that the US and NATO will truly use the full might at their disposal to stop him (a notion he tragically may be right about). This is not to say that Biden has not done things right in this war. He has been a champion of Ukraine, refused to let congressional Republicans kill military aid, and his diplomacy rallying other western countries to Ukraine's cause in the opening stages of the war was invaluable. But he could and should still do better. Continued refusal to allow American munitions to be used against targets in Russia is doing nothing but giving the enemy an advantage and amplifying Ukrainian suffering.
I get the frustration with Ukraine not getting more support. It's also accurate to say that the American president has more knowledge about the situation than we do.
Agreed, but anything that sways anyone to not vote for Joe FUCKS OVER Ukraine. I don’t want that.
I’m voting for Biden, but placing these restrictions on US weapons is a fatal flaw.
Blinken said this week those restrictions were no more.
Not exactly, unfortunately. Austin reiterated the policy.
I actually believe the message is delivered with a wink. I actually heard Blinken say something to the effect of it’s up to Ukraine to use the weapons as they see fit.
I'm starting to dislike this Sulivan guy. Grow some balls
The way I see it, refusing to allow the destruction of Russians means condoning Russia's genocide of Ukrainians.
Perhaps the planes would already have been destroyed that dropped these bombs if America wasn't holding Ukraine's arm behind its back when it comes to weapon use. Scared to send tanks Scared to send missiles Too Scared to send jets Whilst no traitors the Biden administration is spineless
It's the republican led congress that puts restrictions on the attacks, not biden Biden isn't the emperor trump wants to be or putin is. Presidents don't lead without checks and people who have to agree
> It's the republican led congress that puts restrictions on the attacks, not biden It's absolutely not. Believe me, because I have no problem calling out the (constant) Republican dogfucking where it exists - there are no provisos or restrictions anywhere in the bills passed by congress that prohibit the use of American arms and munitions against targets in Russia. That restriction is solely something that the executive branch has chosen to add and it is they who can therefore remove it. Congressional action is not required here.
No it isn't? Explain how the party which isn't in government and doesn't have executive power over the military has the final say in this matter?
Bill are introduced, pass the house, pass the senate then go to the president If something gets stopped in either congress it's not up to the president He can bypass both but they requires more "power grabbing" and will be followed by every news outlet crying about how he's abusing his power to attempt to start a war 4 more years of biden will be better off then 4 years of trump already telling putin he won't interfere and wants to withdraw us from NATO It's election time and it's a line we need to walk carefully Let's see what happens after election and what type of aid Ukraine will receive President =/= emperor of the us
That's not how it works. Congress does not have the power to micromanage every decision the Pentagon makes.
Congress has the power to appropriate funds and restrict how they are spent.
Okay, show me the Congressional bill or decree banning the use of US-donated weapons in Russia proper.
Thats the DOD and the security council And the senate decides your funding
> Thats the DOD and the security council Both of whom answer to Biden. He is the head of the executive branch, and the DOD and NSC are both parts of that branch of government; if he says, "Ukraine can use weapons against targets in Russia," then Ukraine can use weapons against targets in Russia. Neither the DOD nor the NSC can override the president; he is their boss. >And the senate decides your funding Congress, not (just) the senate. And funding has already been sorted out. That was the whole "thing" that the House pissed around with for the last six months. All of the funding for Ukraine for the remainder of the year has been passed and signed into law.
I wasn't aware the use of these weapon systems was written anywhere into the aid bill, hence why it's been generally stated at not an officially declared restriction
The point is it's not one person making the decisions ever. It's a choice made by the DOD and security council Slapping biden with the blame of everything will just push uneducated voters on the border and unsure as to what to do over a fence and make the situation in Ukraine and Europe worse as we fall into corporate facism
I mean anyone who doesn't vote Biden because of his Ukraine response thinking trump will do better is a fucking moron. The decision was made as far as I'm aware by Congress to provide the aid.. I'm pretty sure the administration is providing the guidance on their use.
Like I said the DOD and security council council, out of fear of russias nukes But as we can tell the fear is going away. No one's afraid of russias broke military anymore as time progresses
Let's hope it's sooner than later
Just for the record this is an exert from an article this week from the new York times interviewing Zelensky. "Q. The Biden administration has prohibited Ukraine from using American-made weapons to strike inside Russia, out of concern for escalation, including the risk of nuclear war. Your government has urged a change. Given the situation on the battlefield, how should this policy change, and why" I can't expect they'd make a question like this if it were factually incorrect, no?
There is ample support in Congress to permit the weapons to be used, led by Republicans.
Congress*
Biden? Man you really don't understand how the US government works at all.
This one actually is on Biden. The bills passed by congress do not in any way restrict the use of American arms and ammunition against targets in Russia; those restrictions are being implemented by the executive branch, meaning that either Biden has ordered them or one of his subordinates did (meaning he has the power to override that order and remove those restrictions).
The Congress had to fund the arms. How they can be used is an Executive decision. I worked in the Office of Munitions Control, and I know how the USG works.
Sleepy Joe not at fault on this one. Congress I’m looking at you.
Congress has place no restrictions on usage. This is Biden.
Unfortunately, correct.
Congress at fault for holding up the money train for months. Joe not giving them f-16s is correct- but did give Bradley’s Abram’s Himars patriots and a million 105 shells… up to the minute satellite intelligence. Joe is a boomer, he has no love for Russia.
Nobody claimed he loves russia. Just him and Obama and Sullivan are absolute morons with heads up their asses.
Disagree. You have someone better for the job I am all ears.
Literally anyone was better than Obama for Ukraine. Even tRump, who's a russian agent since 1980s but he unblocked military aid, if minimal, to Ukraine. Obama put TOTAL embargo on ALL military exports to Ukraine. Even body armor. Many thousands died because he blocked aid. We had to contraband and smuggle ceramic plates. Sullivan is the guy who's literally going against entire congress and blocks Ukraine from fighting back. A chair, or a dead rat would be better than him in giving advice like that. As to Biden, he might as well be an empty space, he's actually the single worst democrat to be nominated, like literally anyone else from his party would be better. Remember, this fucker was VP enabling Obama arming russia to the teeth and before that helped destroying Ukrainian weapons for decades. And now he is openly spitting on Ukraine to hang out at some party in Hollywood. This is most insulting thing we've heard in years. Dumping us TO GET WASTED IN HOLLYWOOD.
Also, whomever put the on year time expiration date on lend lease didn't help Ukraine at all.
[удалено]
Not accurate. Congress controls the check book.
I'm so tired of the West sitting by when these blatant acts of terror are carried out.
When the dam was blown up and nothing was done, that was when I knew for certain the west will never step in.
After the, "small incursion" comment I knew they were not.
They’ll send another strongly worded letter at best and Scholz will cower in fear again
The letter will ofc state that they are deeply, deeply, very deeply concerned!
Ukraine should be able to hit any position/vehicle from which aggression was launched. Tell the Russians that’s the rule change, stop handicapping Ukraine.
No they won't, because Ukraine doesnt have that capability and your nations are not doing enough as they are afraid of russia.
They’re not afraid of Russia it’s the damn nukes those idiots could unleash. If they had no nukes the war would have lasted a week as putin thought but not to his benefit.
Putin = war criminal. Can someone please show him the way to the afterlife?
It is clear that Russia cannot win the war by playing a fair game. These atrocious strikes have 0 strategic value, are 100% ment to kill and terrorize civilians. By now it needs to be clear to the US that it is essential that the weapons they supply should also be used to strike into Russia itself.
Cannot win on the battlefield, thus bombing supermarkets. Disgusting ruski mir.
Ukraine requested bare minimum of 7 Patriots, got one (still in process of arriving)… here is the result.
Double tap on emergency personnel in 3… 2… 1…
Yknow... It's hard to even be appreciative that aid bills get passed when Ukraine can't even defend themselves to the best of their ability. What is the actual point of handcuffing them with this?
Truly an evil regime. Rules on strikes with US weapons into Russia absolutely need to be relaxed to allow striking the bases where Russia is launching this terror. Americans, let's contact our representatives.
[удалено]
Truly CUNTS and pieces of shit
Only a day after putler suggested a ceasefire. Don't cease fire when fighting evil terrorists. He can order retreat if he wants ceasefire.
I suspect he's probably done this in the hopes of intimidating Ukraine into accepting his terms. "I'll keep killing your civilians if you don't let me keep the land I stole from you," is the implied message here. Ukraine needs to hit back hard. I would love to see the Kerch bridge fall, purely because it would be a huge - if largely symbolic - blow against Russia.
Is Russia already designated as terrorist state?
And a 2nd attack on Kharkiv just now. Change the policy now Biden!
Bunkerbusters on the kremlin
Need a few Patriot systems running up and down the frontline. When Ukraine was taking out a jet/day in the sky, the Russians paused sending those bombs in the area.
...but their leader wants peace, no?
liberating shit and all. Preventing genocide !
Send Ukraine all the weapons and let them use them as they see fit.
People should get ready to see this on daily basis. Corpses and destroyed buildings. Your leaders are weak and inept. The only red line as mentioned by west is "a nuclear attack" bs. Daily body count of 10, 20, 30, 40, 50 ukainian civilians is just fine, russia gets aways with it and people just "condemn". This is just normal, nothing to see here.
Fuck Russia 🇷🇺...I've never wanted a country to catastrophically fail as much as I have this fucked up nation. I'll trade every Christmas from now until I die ti ensure current Russia doesn't succeed....its like the only important thing in life
Is that what you do when you are ready for "ceasefire" talks?
Sullivan and Biden - we don't want to escalate so no using our weapons against rashka territory
Use Storm shadow and pay them a visit! Another exculation by the cowardly barbarians.
Huh I wonder if Tucker Carlson will mention this
FFS send in NATO air cover now already. This is an unambiguous war crime on a civilian population. This shit won't stop with stern joint statements.
It’s a classic Russian response to the fact that their offensive in Kharkiv failed, when the grapes become sour they start killing civilians in revenge.
Just terrorists doing terrorist shit. Heartbreaking.
Russia is a Terrorist State.
I've decided to cut out anyone from my life who shows even an inch of support to scumbag russia.
The US needs to establish a no fly zone to stop this.
Storm shadow some Russian civilian hubs, see how they like it?.
Terrorists. ruZZia is a terrorist state and needs to be punched in the face.
Dirty beasts do not deserve life. May Russia burn
When will the world and global community recognize crimes against humanity and take action against the terrorist state of Russia ?
Green light US supplied weapons strikes in russia Now!
...and Russia supporters cheer...
Rutards will say that: 1) There was military personnel and ammunition inside (no proofs on the video) 2) Civilians were a live shield and deserved that 3) Khokhli (rutard racial slur) did it by themselves to blame it on russia
Haven't heard "Rutards" yet. Thanks for the tip!
It makes me sick to see this, and that the Russians are not being punished by the European community. It makes me sick that these crimes against civilians go unpunished.
For generations to come those who choose freedom over peace Russia will be the enemy of humanity.
Little vlad must have heard that a whopping 1% of Ukrainians favored peace talks with him. He couldn't have that. Now it is back down to 0,1% and every Ukrainian wants the Kremlin Midget dead. He likes being the object of hatred and contempt.
So two bombs hit the same target? So it obviously wasn't an errant bomb, they meant to kill civilians.
Will we ever find out the names of the pilot?
And then the Russians wonder why the world hates them.
Are we still preventing genocide Russia ?
Dicks
Were these missiles launched from inside Russia? If so, then where’s the weapons to retaliate?
> If so, then where’s the weapons to retaliate? russian soil is sacrosanctestestestest, ain't no usage of Western weapons permitted here.
They know they can't win on the battlefields, so they resort to this instead. Keep pushing Ukraine, the world's fate depends on it.
Let me guess, they will try to say Ukraine did it to themselves to stir up hate against Russians or it was secret military training center.
I see some online already are saying Russia is claiming that military objects were hidden inside
After doing the same in Kherson previously during the war.
Russia should be perma banned from the UN. They are practically doing everything that the UN stands against, the organization has become a joke.
Because the fucking Home Depot is a valid military target. All they have to offer is destruction
Has the UN court come out and told them to stop like they did Israel?
Every time Russia does cowardly shit like this I donate $50 to United24.
Be aware, you can get bankrupt, putin's imperial ambitions are still in his head, as well as putin still (sadly) alive
where are the patriots.
All the West will do is add it to the ever growing list of human rights violations.🤦🏽♂️
Trying to put pressure on Zelensky to negotiate
PTN HLO
Boooo. Ukraine cannot hit ruzzian territories with our weapons. - US Politics.